> There's nothing in this text which would stop the IERS continuing
> to issue leap seconds as they do now except they'd have to do it
> five years in advance so would, presumably, have to relax the Â±0.9
> seconds requirement somewhat.

An excellent point! Although one fails to see the benefit in a
standard that doesn't constrain behavior. So one supposes that the
IERS could issue a "leap 37:43" - in either direction - immediately
after this droll standard takes effect?
Received on Fri Jan 13 2006 - 07:57:08 PST